Friday, December 22, 2017

Catalans went to the polls last night in snap elections forced by Madrid. The results are still coming in, but with 90% of the votes counted, it looks like a clear victory for pro-independence parties (and an even bigger one for pro-referendum ones). As for the Spanish parties, they fought amongst themselves for a shrinking pool of votes. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's People's Party was slaughtered, but votes went to the (even more pro-fascist) Citizens. Rajoy forced these elections in an effort to unseat a pro-independence Catalan government. Instead, the Catalan people have reconfirmed its mandate.

So far, the elections appear to be free and fair, and the Spanish government did not attempt to pervert the results. The question now is whether they will respect them.

The United Nations general assembly has delivered a stinging rebuke to Donald Trump, voting by a huge majority to reject his unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The vote came after a redoubling of threats by Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, who said that Washington would remember which countries “disrespected” America by voting against it.

Despite the warning, 128 members voted on Thursday in favour of the resolution supporting the longstanding international consensus that the status of Jerusalem – which is claimed as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians – can only be settled as an agreed final issue in a peace deal. Countries which voted for the resolution included major recipients of US aid such as Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US's position was legally untenable, but the bullying approach of their president and UN ambassador won't have helped. The vote shows how small the US has become on the world stage, and to some extent, how hated it is. And while they'll scream and bluster and kick a few people like an angry drunk, it won't help. Trump has basicly burned US goodwill so that countries are no longer willing to look the other way and abstain on acts which are blatantly illegal under international law, let alone actively collaborate in them. Which doesn't bode well for the next US war of aggression...

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Last week, the government finally published guidance to councils on sea-level rise that National had been sitting on for a year. Over on Newsroom, Eloise Gibson explores the reasons for that delay. And it basicly boils down to Nick Smith being obstructive, as usual:

Documents from this period show staff were worried about the reputational risk to ministers from not releasing the guidance in 2016, as they had promised to do. The new plan was to publish it on about February 25, 2017, perhaps at an event “related to the Kaikoura earthquake recovery” or at the BlueGreens conference.

By March, though, it was clear that Smith was worried about the economic implications, including costs to property owners if insurance or value was affected. He decided, over strenuous objections from his ministry, that the guidance needed to go through Cabinet. On March 15, the Ministry’s climate change director Roger Lincoln wrote a strongly-worded briefing to Bennett and Smith, noting that taking the guidance to Cabinet would “delay it several months at least”.

Of course, it took much longer than that, because Smith then refused to take the paper to Cabinet. In the meantime, residents groups worried that their property values would suffer if potential buyers knew the real risk of their property flooding lobbied hard, and managed to get a further delay for yet another round of consultation (they had already been consulted twice). Of course, consultation requires Cabinet approval, and Smith didn't bother asking for that - in effect, burying the entire proposal. And in the meantime, councils screamed for guidance, while approving developments that should never have been approved, because they didn't have something official they could point to to justify saying "no". And the developers laughed all the way to the bank, having offloaded their risk on others, who will no doubt then demand compensation from councils when their homes flood in the future...

Pretty obviously, we should present the bill for that to Nick Smith. Because the only reason this stuff was approved was him and his delaying tactics.

The United Nations General Assembly will vote on a motion condemning the US's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and calling on all countries to respect international law and previous resolutions on the issue. So naturally, the USA is threatening to cut aid to any country which votes in favour:

Donald Trump has threatened to withhold “billions” of dollars of US aid from countries which vote in favour of a United Nations resolution rejecting the US president’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

His comments came after the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, wrote to about 180 of 193 member states warning that she will be “taking names” of countries that vote for a general assembly resolution on Thursday critical of the announcement which overturned decades of US foreign policy.

“We’ll save a lot. We don’t care. But this isn’t like it used to be where they could vote against you and then you pay them hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said. “We’re not going to be taken advantage of any longer.”

So, this means they'll be cutting military support for Saudi Arabia, right?

The US is legally on the wrong side of this issue: the UN has already ruled that the final status of Jerusalem must be decided by negotiation, not Israeli force. But the US no longer cares about laws, either internationally or domesticly. So they're resorting to thuggery instead. Its a sign of how far outside international norms they are that they're openly making such threats. And hopefully the world will respond with a resounding "fuck you", followed by a "nice policy on Iran and North Korea you've got; shame if anything were to happen to it..."

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

The world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, China, has launched the world’s biggest ever mechanism to reduce carbon, in the form of an emissions trading system.

China’s top governmental bodies on Tuesday gave their approval to plans for a carbon trading system that will initially cover the country’s heavily polluting power generation plants, then expand to take in most of the economy.

[...]

Under the trading system, power plants will be issued with allowances to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. Plants that manage to undershoot their targets, by cleaning up and becoming more efficient, will be able to sell their excess permits to other generators, which will be expected to seek greater efficiency as an alternative to paying for their emissions.

China’s power sector is responsible for about 3.3billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually, making this potentially one of the world’s most important mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gases.

So, at the minimum, this means that Chinese powerplant emissions will effectively be capped, and will no longer increase. The same will happen to other industrial sectors as the scheme expands. And hopefully, they will then gradually reduce the caps, driving emissions reductions and production efficiency. Unless of course its just cheaper to bribe officials to ignore emissions than it is to reduce them.

Catalonia goes to the polls tomorrow night (NZ time) in regional elections forced by the Spanish government. Madrid's plan was to force elections, then prevent pro-independence parties from running by jailing their leadership and banning displays of support (it is illegal to display the colour yellow or the word "democracy" because these are seen as advertisements for "seditious" parties). But despite this, pro-independence parties have a solid lead in the polls. While the exact structure of the government will depend on the coalition process, if the polls are accurate and the election results are allowed to reflect the popular will, the result will be another pro-independence government with a reinforced mandate.

Of course, this being Spain, a country where the government beats people in the streets to stop them from voting, those things are not guaranteed. Neither is Madrid respecting the election outcome and allowing a newly-elected pro-independence government to take office. But if it cheats or ignores the elections, it will show even more clearly that it is no longer a democracy in any meaningful sense. And if that happens, the European Union should act immediately to restore democratic norms.

The new Government has put a full stop on state house sales today, halting a 2,500-house transfer in Christchurch.

Making the announcement at the famous first state home in Miramar, Wellington, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said housing was at the core of her Government's agenda.

"Our belief is that housing is at the heart of what makes our community strong, and everyone deserves to have a warm, dry and affordable home."

​Families in 2500 state homes in Christchurch would no longer be switching landlords next year.

Good. National sold off over 5,000 state houses as part of their ideological programme to get the government out of helping those in need. That programme led to mass-homelessness, and conflicted with basic kiwi values, so I'm glad to see it end. Hopefully Labour will now be able to repair some of the damage National has caused, and get us back to a society where everyone has a proper roof over their heads.

The Herald has another story about the abuse of the OIA, this time at MPI. Forest & Bird requested information from MPI on its handling of Kauri dieback. MPI dragged its feet, and extended the timeframe into the never-never. The Ombudsman has now ruled their extension was unlawful - and oddly, the information was released immediately, suggesting that the delay was political rather than practical:

The Ombudsman has asked the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to apologise to Forest and Bird after the group waited for months to receive information it had requested about kauri dieback management.

The group has accused MPI of sitting on the documents, which were released one day after Ombudsman Leo Donnelly responded to its complaint over the four-month delay.

However, MPI insists it released the information "immediately after it was ready".

So why didn't MPI want to release the information? The request was prompted by several reports of how the response to Kauri dieback was mismanaged, so there's an obvious reason there. And if you're in any doubt, there's a piece in New Zealand Geographic about both Kauri dieback and the MPI response, which ought to dispel any doubts. Its very clear from it that MPI has simply not bothered to fund the basic science into this disease. It seems that it thinks its biosecurity responsibilities only extend to subsidising commercial industry, not in protecting our iconic species from extinction. Scientists have said what research is needed, told them what they need to do. MPI has ignored them, apparently because it thinks there is some "conflict of interest" (which sounds like the same sort of argument climate change deniers used against studying climate change). When they have responded, its taken six or seven years to get things done. During which the disease has spread.

Interestingly, New Zealand Geographic has its own OIA horror-story on this issue:

It has been difficult to report more extensively on the Kauri Dieback Programme’s work as MPI failed to supply information to New Zealand Geographic. The Official Information Act dictates that government agencies must respond to requests for information within 20 working days, or 40 in special cases. As this magazine went to print, 55 working days had elapsed without New Zealand Geographic receiving any of the documents it had requested. The matter has now been referred to the Ombudsman.

Which is beginning to look a lot like an agency trying to cover up its own mistakes, rather than one which is obeying the law. As for the solution, I think the Minister needs to make it crystal clear that this is unacceptable, and that he expects information to be released in a timely fashion, and to set some incentives to make that happen. Starting with firing the Chief Executive for cause if there is any repeat of this criminality. And if the Minister doesn't do that, then the opposition needs to be asking him why not in Parliament every day. Otherwise, MPI's case of OIA dieback will spread and infect other departments.

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Yesterday, the government announced that it was planning to publicly consult on its proposed zero carbon law, before introducing it in October next year. In the interim, it was establishing an interim climate change board to provide preliminary advice, including on whether agriculture continues to receive a billion dollar a year climate subsidy.

This doesn't sound very exciting, and National's happy mischief makers (who have consistently opposed any action on climate change) are already trying to present the government doing exactly what it said it would do as a betrayal. But it is understandable. The Zero Carbon Act is going to provide the framework for climate change policy for the next thirty years. While we know roughly what that framework is going to look like - budgets, reporting, advice given publicly to make it costly for the government to refuse - such fundamental legislation needs a bit of thought into it. And you can bet that if the government wasn't consulting, those same happy mischief makers would be wailing about how undemocratic and irresponsible it was being. Farrars' gonna Farrar, after all.

And that said, there is a tension between taking climate change seriously enough to set this sort of long-term framework to reduce emissions, and continuing to allow fossil fuel exploration and extraction. I accept that it can't all be banned overnight - if only because it takes time for the legislation to be passed through Parliament - and that the government is therefore bound by the existing legal framework (and that it can't talk about specific projects like Te Kuha to avoid handing them a judicial review on a plate). But if we are to have any hope of meeting our targets and saving the world, then it has to end, and sooner, rather than later. We can't afford to burn the coal, oil and gas we've discovered, let alone any more. In such a situation, talking about "transition" sounds like continuing the unaffordable and destructive status quo, while allowing new exploration runs the risk of creating powerful vested interests in more destruction if they find anything. So, it would be better to end it, and quickly, rather than pretending that it can continue. Otherwise, we're going to continue the same old policy of setting targets but doing nothing, and that is going to cost us tens of billions of dollars.

...assuming, of course, that they respect the people's decision. They've already ignored it once, and there's no reason to believe they won't do so again. Which makes it all the more important to end Tonga's undemocratic noble gerrymander, which sees a third of parliament reserved for a mere thirty people. Instead, those seats should be abolished, and the parliament fully elected. If the nobles want to sit there, they should face the judgement of the people like anybody else.

Monday, December 18, 2017

British troops breached the Geneva conventions and subjected Iraqi civilians to cruel and inhuman treatment by hooding them and taking turns to run over their backs, the high court has ruled.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) breached the conventions as well as the 1998 Human Rights Act in the way in which it detained civilians after the 2003 invasion, the court concluded on Thursday.

The judgment comes 10 days after the international criminal court (ICC) declared there was “a reasonable basis” to conclude that British troops committed war crimes against Iraqi detainees.

[...]

The court also ruled that the MoD’s policy of detaining individuals as prisoners of war unless it was certain they were civilians, rather than releasing them when there was no proof they were combatants, was based on a misunderstanding of the Geneva conventions.

The victims in this case were mistreated in other ways - subjected to forced nudity and sexual humiliation and burned with cigarettes - but couldn't prove that they were in British (rather than US) custody at the time. Still, they've been awarded £84,000 in compensation, and there are over 600 cases pending.

But the kicker is this bit:

Despite the court’s findings, the MoD said no service personnel or veterans had been interviewed by investigators, nobody had been charged with any offence and no criminal charges may ever be brought in the UK.

A court finds war crimes were committed, and the Ministry of Defence says they won't do anything to find and punish those responsible. Which seems like a deliberate policy of turning a blind eye, a criminal conspiracy to ensure impunity. And that's exactly why the International Criminal Court needs to get involved, and why the British generals and politicians responsible for the invasion and its conduct need to be tried in The Hague.

On Friday, SSC released the information it had provided to political parties during the coalition negotiations phase. Among this was advice to the Green Party on the cost of ending all future coal mining, offshore oil drilling, and fracking. Using a present-value approach - basicly, all the money we will ever get from those industries, discounted for time, and not including benefits such as stopping spills and environmental destruction - put the cost of ending oil at $15 billion. Note that that's not an actual price tag, but a cost in terms of "money we will never get". Ending coal was priced at $441 million, which in present-value terms is next to nothing.

$15 billion sounds like a lot, and it is. But as noted above, it doesn't consider benefits, only costs (which largely fall on foreign oil companis, not kiwis). So what are those benefits? Avoiding sea-level rise, for a start:

The most recent national assessment found nearly 170,000 buildings sat within 3m of the mean high water spring, exposing them not just to sea level rise, but also storm-tide and wave flooding that could reach 1-2m in exposed places.

If all of those buildings were lost, they would cost $52 billion to replace.

About 68,000 buildings are below the 1m mark, carrying a replacement value of about $19b.

The report didn't include other assets or infrastructure on the damage bill, other than identifying the kilometres of road and rail exposed, and the number of airports.

So, the benefits of ending fossil fuel burning outweigh the costs by a margin of at least three to one. Even if the first metre of sea-level rise (which will drown South Dunedin, New Brighton, Eastbourne and Petone) is already baked in and unavoidable, its still a two to one benefit to cost ratio. Which seems like a complete no-brainer.

Two thirds of kiwis live in areas prone to sea-level rise. Ending fossil fuel use isn't some green quack - its an essential survival step. And while ending it here will only be a small amount, and won't protect us from foreign CO2, the journey is made of single steps, and we can't expect others to do what we won't do ourselves.

Gwyn seems to have eschewed diplomatic niceties for the benefit of plain-speaking. It is not common to have oversight watchdogs speaking so bluntly.

And when Gwynn does speak so, the agencies' minister Andrew Little has reminded Kitteridge that she is obliged to listen.

"The Inspector General is the final and independent active oversight of these agencies.

When she reports, that's the bottom line.

"If the Inspector General is saying something is unlawful, it is for the agencies to step in line with what she says."

Which is what you'd expect a Minister to say. The problem is that here, the SIS has systematically refused to listen, and obstructed the Inspector-General's investigation (which is a crime). There need to be consequences for that, so that they actually get the fucking message. Unfortunately, where Little could be laying down the law and making examples, he is silent. Which is not a good sign that this will be the last case of unlawful behaviour by our spies, or that their culture of impunity will change.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

The government has unveiled plans to fix National's social deficit, with a $5.5 billion package to help the poor, to by funded by taking away National's tax cuts for the rich. Good. For nine long years, National doled out tax cuts to its rich mates, while shitting on everyone at the bottom of the heap. At the same time, they eroded workers rights, keeping wages low and ensuring that people couldn't work their way out of poverty. I'm glad to see that change.

Government exists to help us, both by direct redistribution through taxation, and by providing the services we need. Labour, NZ First and the Greens will do that. National wouldn't. And we're well rid of them.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has released their report into NZSIS access to Customs data, and it is an appalling litany of criminal behaviour by our spies. The short version: for years, the SIS accessed customs and immigration databases giving details on everyone's travel movements, and copied the data to their own servers for future mining (so, they know where you've been, if they ever care to look). In November 2014, they were told that this was illegal, so following their usual pattern, they had the government ram through an urgent law-change to legalise it (you may recall the democratic atrocity of the government holding sham select committee hearings, where submissions were solicited, but never read). They then systematically violated the constraints imposed by the law they had written, and did not stop even when informed by the Inspector-General that it was illegal. It was only in August last year that they finally began obeying the law (and of course, they then had another urgent law rammed through to broaden their access).

It gets worse. The SIS is refusing to admit that they behaved unlawfully, and refusing to provide the Inspector-General with information about the extent of their unlawful access or what has happened to the data. That in itself is contrary to the Intelligence and Security Act (and the Act which preceded it), and a criminal offence, which the Inspector-General all but accuses them of. So will anyone be prosecuted, or even sacked? Of course not. Because when push comes to shove, the spies are above the law, and the Inspector-General (like the IPCA) is there to provide pretty lies to the public about how they are under control, rather than actually keep them under control (or at least, that is the effect in practice when their recommendations are ignored and there are no prosecutions even in cases of clear and systematic criminal behaviour, as here).

As I noted when this story first emerged earlier in the week, Parliament needs to put its foot down. They have told us very explicitly that the spies will be controlled and their powers scrutinised. They've passed laws saying so. And those laws are being ignored. Their legitimacy as a parliament depends on their standing up for our rights, upholding those laws, calling the SIS to account and sacking people. And if they don't, then we might as well give up on laws and elections, because they will have shown that in practice, its the spies who call the shots.

So now the battle moves to the select committee. The bigots (including foreign bigots) are lobbying heavily on this, just as they did over homosexual law reform, civil unions, and marriage equality. So if you support the bill, its important to speak up for it. I'll post details on how to submit when they go up.

The good news is that with 77 votes for first reading, the bill has a high likelihood of passing. There will undoubtedly be amendments from the committee, but they are likely to be technical rather than substantive. Though there will be a strategic question about whether Seymour continues with the referendum path, or just opts for a straight up or down vote. I guess we'll find that out late next year.

Parliament's website still hasn't caught up on all the bills in the ballot yet, so I've no idea what that one does.

Jan Tinetti (whose Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill was drawn yesterday) already has another bill in the ballot. Also, despite all their noise about "transparency" over the last few weeks, National doesn't have a single bill in on the subject. Which I guess shows how they really feel about it.

Past practice seems to have been appalling, with SIS officers at one stage explicitly instructed to exploit people's misapprehensions about their role and connections with foreign intelligence services - in other words, to let people think they were a despotic secret police able to kidnap and torture, and that they would pas son information to enable foreign human rights abuses if cooperation was not forthcoming. The Inspector-General calls this a one-off, except that this is exactly what they did in the Fijian case, explicitly threatening to inform Fijian authorities, which "could result in problems for and harm to people in [that country]". In one warning, they even appear to have specifically referred to Fijian human rights abuses.

The Inspector-General has made it clear that this isn't acceptable, and this has been accepted by the SIS (largely because its also been nailed down very clearly in statute and Ministerial Policy Statements). But the IGIS has also made recommendations about procedural fairness in such interviews, around both their context (whether there are police present), and whether people are allowed to retain a written copy so that they know exactly what they are being warned about. The SIS has rejected these recommendations, putting its own operational convenience and petty secrecy above people's fundamental rights.

This is not acceptable. It also undermines the whole oversight regime. Again, if the spies can just ignore the Inspector-General, there's simply no point in having one. But bluntly, if there's not going to be oversight, we can't have spies. If the SIS behaves like this, they need to be defunded and eliminated. Because the cost of having a lawless, criminal agency is far worse than anything they might ever prevent.

So, three government bills to replace the ones they pulled. Things worked out for them after all.
Sadly not drawn: Angie Warren-Clark's Crimes (Offence of Blasphemous Libel) Amendment Bill, which would presumably repeal the archaic offence of blasphemous libel. Its good to see a Labour MP finally stepping up to push for this - it is long past time.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Given its treatment of Catalonia, it is clear that Spain is (still) a fascist, authoritarian state. However, its a fascist, authoritarian state which is more transparent than New Zealand, in that it is now legally required to release Cabinet agendas and minutes. The original article is in Spanish, but there was an English translation on the FOIANet mailign list:

Access Info has today published on its website the minutes of Spain’s weekly Cabinet meetings for the years 1996 to 2017, making them available to the public for the first time in Spanish democratic history.

The minutes, which contain the desicions reached in each weekly meeting, were obtained using information requests by Access Info as part of collaborative research with journalist Jesús Escudero, and have been published to mark the third anniversary of the entry into force of Spain’s Transparency Law on 10 December 2014.

[...]

Access Info's work to open up the Spanish Cabinet started in 2016 with an initial request for the agendas of the weekly Cabinet meetings, documents which were then used by various journalists as the basis for further investigations.

Access Info is calling for information on decision-making processes to be made public: “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” concluded Gutiérrez, “The government should now ensure proactive publication of the minutes not only of Cabinet meetings but also those of other decision-making processes.”

While New Zealand (falsely) prides itself on our government transparency, this information would never be released here. DPMC has rejected requests for basic information such as Cabinet agendas, claiming that telling us what ministers are discussing or have discussed in the past this would compromise Ministerial collective responsibility, free and frank advice, and confidentiality. They have refused to release older agendas where those interests are less likely to be relevant, and refused even to release information with redactions to protect those interests (standard practice with every other agency). Their justification for this is that

Cabinet agendas have been requested under the OIA in the past, but the Cabinet Office has never released them publicly because my predecessors and I have maintained a consistent position that it would not be in the public interest to do so.

In other words, it is secret because it has always been secret, and bugger the law! (Incidentally, the public servant who wrote that is now the SIS head who is obstructing IGIS investigations. Mindless secrecy seems to be her thing).

Cabinet is the heart of our government. Secrecy there poisons everything else. Transparency there, around what they are discussing and what they have decided, is vital if we are to consider ourselves to be an open democracy. The new government has made some positive noises around proactive release of Cabinet material, which is good, but until that happens, the least they could do is force DPMC to comply with the OIA and release such information on request. Otherwise, we face the prospect of being less transparent than fascist Spain.

Our spies have broken the law accessing Customs and Immigration data and have resisted explaining to the intelligence oversight body why they have done so.

That's the blunt statement spelled out in the latest annual report from the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.

[...]

The details are revealed in the latest annual report from Gwynn into the NZ Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau.

In it, Gwynn said the NZSIS had "unlawfully obtained Customs data" until mid-2016 and it had not properly explained why.

In the past, intelligence agencies have provided the Inspector-General with their internal legal advice, which is essential to understanding their position. SIS has refused. Which suggests that their advice is tenuous (or non-existent), and they know it, and are relying on secrecy to avoid the criticism they deserve. But either wya, it shows us that the "oversight" of IGIS is fundamentally broken, that their legal power to compel evidence (which overrides secrecy) is apparently insufficient, and that spies do not fear the derisory $5,000 fine for obstructing the Inspector-General in their duties. In other words, the oversight regime is a joke. But if that's the case, then the promise the government made (that new spy powers would be constrained by better oversight) was a lie, and that it is simply not safe for our society to have spies.

Parliament needs to put its foot down: either SIS cooperates completely with IGIS, or they get defunded and eliminated. Because their legitimacy depends on being seen to uphold our rights against the spies, by ensuring that the latter follow the law. Parliament cannot permit a public agency to behave in such a criminal and lawless manner. At least, not if it wants to keep saying that we are a democracy.

The ombudsman has issued a provisional opinion on the government's 33-page coalition document, and found it not to be official information. Meaning that its not covered by the Act and does not have to be released:

The coalition Government's refusal to release a 33-page document created during negotiations has been backed by the Chief Ombudsman's provisional ruling.

[...]

In the provisional ruling, sent to Newsroom, Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier said he was satisfied the document had not played a role in policy decisions.

Boshier said he had "carefully read and considered" the document, saying it was "clearly made for the purpose of assisting the parties with coalition negotiations".

"It contains discussion points designed for negotiation and, despite certain public comments to the contrary, does not include information such as directives to Ministers," Boshier said, in the provisional decision sent to Newsroom.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's office told Boshier the document had not been passed on to any ministers or government departments, or used by any ministers in carrying out their official duties.

Boshier said he was satisfied the information had not been used by Ardern in her role as Prime Minister, and was held "solely in her capacity as Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party".

And that's reasonable. The OIA covers government information, created or held by Ministers or agencies. It doesn't cover political parties, or information created or held by politicians in their political capacity as MP's or party leaders. And while that distinction can and has been abused by (National) Ministers playing the "hat game", I'm satisfied that the Ombudsman can tell the difference between what is official and what is not.

Monday, December 11, 2017

When it was in government, National resolutely refused to set a target for child poverty, or even recognise an official statistic for it. Basicly, they didn't want to talk about it, or how their policies to help the rich seemed to make other people worse off. But now, Jacinda Ardern wants their support for a new targets regime:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern wants National's support for a new law that will "take the politics out of poverty" and bind future Governments to set targets to reduce child poverty.

And she says the Government's families package, which will be launched this week, will lift more than 50,000 children out of poverty and help 70 per cent of low and middle income families.

Ardern, who is also the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, said the Government would introduce a child poverty bill in the new year, and she will write to National Party leader Bill English to seek his support.

It would set a range of measures of child poverty and bind the Government, and future Governments, to setting three-year and 10-year child poverty reduction targets.

Its a good policy, which will force governments to admit the problem and at least pretend to do something about it - and allow us to hold them accountable at the ballot box if they don't do enough. But while I think Ardern has to make the offer to National, I don't think they'll be interested. Throughout its nine long years in government, National consistently showed it simply was not interested in child poverty, and refused to admit that there even was a problem, let alone that government could do anything about it. So they're really not going to be interested in binding themselves to care about it in future. And while normally losing an election would cause an ex-government to reconsider things like that, National is in denial even about that, and still pretending that they didn't lose (despite the reality that they're now in opposition and Bill English has taken a $250,000 pay cut).

In other words, I don't expect anything from National in this area. Its not a problem that affects the rich, or farmers, or trucking or construction companies, so they just won't give a shit about it. The best we can expect is a sullen acceptance of the law produced only by fear of the political cost of repeal, combined with do nothing targets next time they're in government. Just like climate change, in other words.

There have been no intelligence reports that boat-people are targeting New Zealand more since the change of Government, nor any suggestion of a credible attempt by people smugglers to reach these shores by boat, the Government says.

And Andrew Little, Minister responsible for intelligence agencies the GCSB and the SIS, says that the boat-people who Australia says wanted to come to New Zealand probably didn't even know where New Zealand was.

His comments support those of a senior Foreign Affairs official, who told the Foreign Affairs select committee this morning that there was no evidence boat smugglers are targeting New Zealand more since the standoff over Manus Island.

This isn't surprising. The Australian government has shown a willingness in the past to lie to its own people to bolster its monstrous policy - as in the case of the "children overboard" affair (where the Australian Liberals used such lies to win an election). At the same time, Australia is supposed to be our closest friend. And yet, they're lying to us in an effort to manipulate our public and our policies. This is not the action of a friendly nation. But I guess, Australia hasn't been friendly for quite a while.

Meanwhile, remember: if you don't like Australian policy, Australian cruelty, and Australian lies, don't buy Australian. Its very easy once you get into the habit.

Thursday, December 07, 2017

The Australian parliament has finally passed its same-sex marriage bill. Unlike New Zealand, where MPs simply introduced and voted for a member's bill, the Australian government forced its citizens to participate in a non-binding postal referendum, exposing gay Australians to an outburst of hate speech. When the referendum failed to produce the result the bigots wanted (because they're a minority even in racist, bigoted Australia), they then tried to wreck the resulting legislation with amendments which would have effectively nullified anti-discrimination law and allowed widespread discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Fortunately, those amendments failed. And in the end, the bill was passed without even a head count, because those "opposing" it weren't actually willing to go on record as voting against it.

In other words, the opposition to marriage equality wasn't principled, wasn't from people who actually cared. It was from people who knew better trying to pander to the very worst in society. What a pack of arseholes. Australia needs, and deserves, better politicians than this.

NZDF has redacted comments about how long kiwi troops will be in Iraq. Its not clear whether this is because they expect the new government to withdraw them, or because they want to keep them there for as long as the US wants.

The GCSB and SIS want Ministers to trek down to Pipitea House for classified briefings, rather than giving them in the Beehive. Who goes to who shows who works for who, so basicly they're saying they're more important than our elected government. The inconvenience will also deter such briefings, potentially impacting on oversight of both our spy agencies and the intelligence warrant system. The alternative - appropriate secure facilities in the Beehive - is never suggested.

The State Services BIM has only a single mention of "open government". SSC's BIM does talk about opennness and transparency, but seems to be largely in denial about the problems with the OIA, and uses good statistics on timeliness to pretend that there are no problems around e.g. unlawful redaction. Its certainly not the approach I'd expect from an organisation committed to open government.

The climate change BIM is informative about expected policy direction, but still has an unhealthy (and, given our lack of access to international markets, utterly unrealistic) focus on using international units to meet our commitments. This is echoed in MFAT's briefing on international climate change issues, which also suggests that MFAT is going to keep pushing for accounting scams for trees in order to actuarially reduce our commitment.

Unlike Gareth Morgan, DoC thinks domestic cats have a place in New Zealand, even in a predator-free New Zealand. That's a relief for us cat-minions.

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

During his 33 years in Parliament Peter Dunne was a strong supporter of a New Zealand republic. Now, he's used his pseudo-valedictory speech at VUW's post-election conference to renew that call:

Former United Future leader Peter Dunne has challenged the millennial generation in Parliament to "seize the moment" and begin a process to turn New Zealand into a republic.

"I strongly believe that the time has well passed for us to have severed the umbilical cord to grandmother England," he told a conference at Parliament today.

"We should be an independent republic within the Commonwealth, like India or South Africa and the majority of other Commonwealth nations.

"It is not just my Irish heritage or my sense of pride and confidence in our country in what it can do that is why I am so staunchly in the belief that we can do so much better than continue to bend our knee to a hereditary monarch on the other side of the world.

"We have consistently shown over the last 30 years or so that we can produce many quality New Zealanders to serve as our Governor-General.

"There is no reason why we cannot do likewise with a non-executive president in that role and frankly the time for change is well overdue."

He is absolutely right. While Britain colonised us, there is no reason now why we should continue to be ruled by a foreign monarch on the other side of the world. Instead, we should complete the repatriation of our constitution, ditch the monarch, and have our own president. Given how little the monarch actually does, the change will be almost entirely symbolic. But symbols matter, and the symbolism of the monarch - especially a foreign monarchy with a history of genocide and murder - is utterly inconsistent with the values of modern Aotearoa. We should change that symbol, and the sooner we do it, the better.

For the past month, Catalan president Carles Puigdemont has been in exile in Brussels, forced to flee to avoid being jailed on charges of "sedition" and "rebellion" for respecting the outcome of a democratic vote. The Spanish government has been trying and failing to extradite him. But now they've suddenly withdrawn their extradition request:

A Spanish judge has lifted the extradition order on the former Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, and four former cabinet members who fled to Belgium to avoid charges of rebellion, sedition and misuse of public funds.

In a surprise move as campaigning officially began for this month’s Catalan election, supreme court judge Pablo Llarena withdrew European arrest warrants for the five, but national warrants still stand – meaning they would be likely to face arrest if they chose to return to Spain.

Puigdemont said after the supreme court decision he would stay in Belgium “for the moment”.

The reason is simple: they were going to lose, as (unlike Spain) Belgium requires actual violence rather than democratic voting for sedition and rebellion. And as he can't be jailed for "misuse of public funds" (AKA "spending money according to the commands of the Catalan Parliament on something Spain didn't like"), that would defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. This week Spain finally released six Catalan cabinet Ministers on bail - but only after they had promised to give up politics and not campaign for independence. Those who refused, including Catalan vice-president Oriol Junqueras, are still in prison. Which makes it clear that they are being detained for their political views, not because of any threat to the public.

Meanwhile, in an ominous sign, Spain has refused to allow international observers to observe its forced elections. Which immediately suggests that they are going to try and fix them. They are already mounting a campaign of repression to prevent people campaigning for independence, including banning the colour yellow. If this continues, then it is unlikely the elections will meet international standards. But as we've already seen, the last thing Spain wants is for Catalans to have a free and fair vote to choose their future. Instead, that future will be dictated to them by Madrid. That's not democratic. But Spain surrendered any pretence of democracy when it sent riot police to beat and shoot people for voting.

The chief prosecutor at the international criminal court in The Hague, Fatou Bensouda, has declared there is a “reasonable basis” to believe that UK soldiers committed war crimes against detainees during the Iraq conflict.

The announcement on Monday means the ICC will press ahead with its investigation into claims that British troops abused and unlawfully killed prisoners after the US-led invasion.

It came in a 74-page report delivered in New York to the annual assembly of states parties that participate in the jurisdiction of the court.

In her conclusion on the long-running inquiry into the role of British troops in Iraq between 2003 and 2008, Bensouda said: “The [prosecutor’s] office has reached the conclusion that there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of the UK armed forces committed war crimes within the jurisdiction of the court against persons in their custody.”

Hopefully this means the ICC will investigate and prosecute the offences the British have refused to properly investigate and prosecute themselves. Which means we might finally see some justice for Iraq.

At the rally, Greenpeace will announce legal proceedings seeking a declaration that Schlumberger requires an additional permit from DOC under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and without it, must stop seismic blasting. Greenpeace understands the company has only been granted a permit by the Ministry of Energy under the Crown Minerals Act.

Anyone undertaking activities that could disturb marine mammals, including whales, must seek a permit under the MMPA, says Greenpeace campaigner Kate Simcock. She says there is clear evidence that seismic exploration disturbs and even injures whales.

Schlumberger’s operation will see it firing seismic blasts into the seabed to search for oil every 10 seconds, 24 hours a day, for up to three months.

"The impacts on blue whales in this area are likely to be torturous, interfering with their communication and feeding," Simcock says.

The MMPA trumps other laws, so any approval under the Crown Minerals or EEZ Acts doesn't permit this harassment. The issue for the court then will be whether the extreme levels of underwater noise generated by the seismic survey process disturb or harass whales - and if there's an arguable case, whether they need to injunct it to prevent a breach of the law . Of course, the Amazon Warrior could apply for a permit, but this both means that DoC gets to decide whether they can survey, and effectively admitting that they have already committed a criminal offence. Either way, its going to be interesting. And no doubt, we'll see the dying fossil fuel industry wailing for another regulatory subsidy to exempt them from a law that everyone else has to follow.

Britain’s record on tackling poverty has reached a turning point and is at risk of unravelling, following the first sustained rises in child and pensioner poverty for two decades, a major report has warned.

Nearly 400,000 more children and 300,000 more pensioners are now living in poverty than five years ago, during which time there have been continued increases in poverty across both age groups – prompting experts to warn that hard-fought progress towards tackling destitution is “in peril”.

The report, by the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), shows that a total of 14 million people in the UK currently live in poverty – more than one in five of the population. While poverty levels fell in the years to 2011-12, changes to welfare policy – especially since the 2015 Budget – have seen the numbers creep up again.

The basic function of government is to take care of its people. By any measure, the British government has failed at this. And with their attention focused on Brexit and its related infighting, they're just not going to bother fixing this any time soon, or ease the horrific impact of Brexit on their victims.

Monday, December 04, 2017

Back in the 1970's, the New Zealand Police framed Arthur Allan Thomas for a murder he did not commit. Thomas was eventually freed, but none of the officers who framed him faced any professional or criminal consequences, and just a few years ago the Police were still pretending that they had done nothing wrong. And its not an isolated story. Over the weekend, the Sunday Star Times had a story about former assistant commissioner Malcolm Burgess, who the Independent Police Conduct Authority has now (belatedly) concluded threatened to kill a woman in an effort to prevent her from going to the media about police wrongdoing. Burgess had been assigned to lead a police investigation into the cover-up of police involvement in the death of a young man. Instead, he threatened the victim's relatives to try and silence them. The IPCA initially rejected the complaint without investigating it and concluded that Burgess had "behaved appropriately". Last year, they finally bothered to speak to the witnesses, changed their minds, and even issued an apology for their failure to the complainant. By which time Burgess had retired on a full pension. As for the police, they're relying on that initial failure to investigate, and continuing to pretend nothing bad happened:

Joyce wants a public apology from police, but that call was rejected by current assistant commissioner Richard Chambers.

"Former assistant commissioner Burgess served New Zealand Police for 40 years and was a distinguished and professional officer who was dedicated to serving the community," Chambers said.

"For these allegations to continually be raised when they have already been formally considered and dismissed is disappointing. The allegations from Ms Joyce are strongly refuted by police and retired former assistant commissioner Malcolm Burgess.

"Therefore New Zealand Police will not be offering any apology."

And that's the problem right there: the police are simply institutionally incapable of admitting that one of their own has ever done anything wrong, even when a royal commission or their own conduct authority finds otherwise. In other words, they still institutionally shield and protect the reputations of the criminals among them. And until that changes, they simply cannot be trusted.

Whistleblowers who dob-in bad behaviour by their employers to the media could get legal protection.

State Services Minister Chris Hipkins said the Government planned to review New Zealand's Protected Disclosures Act saying there was "a strong view" the 17 year-old law needed updating to keep pace with international best practice.

"Over the coming months I will be working with my officials on available policy options. I will consider the next steps when this work is more advanced," he said.

Good. Because the current law clearly isn't working, and is ignored by the very institutionsresponsible for upholding it. As for how to fix it, there are two obvious measures. One is to allow whistleblowers to go to the media or MP's if their concerns have been ignored by their proper reporting chain. That's an important incentive for those who receive whistleblower reports to actually act on them: because otherwise it will blow up messily in their faces. Related to this, we need to decriminalise government whistleblowing. National made it a criminal offence for people who have ever held a government security clearance to report classified government wrongdoing to the New Zealand public. The obvious result is that such wrongdoing will not be reported, even when it involves corruption, deception, or the violation of human rights. Obviously, that needs to change.

Secondly, while the law prohibits retalation against whistleblowers, it requires the victim to take an employment case against their abuser. And where the organisation they blew the whistle on has deep pockets, that's pointless. Instead, retaliation needs to be a criminal offence. Again, Australia does this, and it seems to provide the right incentives against retaliation for agencies and their staff.

All of this was suggested as part of the Open Government Partnership action plan consultation last year. National didn't pay any attention to it. I'm glad that the new government did.

Over the weekend Don Brash crawled out of his fetid crypt to remind us all that he was still a racist old arsehole. And the National party followed suit, by reintroducing their Kermadec ocean sanctuary Bill. As I've said before, a Kermadec Ocean sanctuary is a good idea. But it also pisses all over a Treaty of Waitangi settlement. National, the party of racists, naturally ignores this completely, and wants to unilaterally overturn the settlement. This calls the government's good faith and the entire settlements process into doubt. And National is doing this not because it particularly cares about our oceans - they don't, any more than they care about our national parks - but simply in an effort to stir trouble in the coalition government. Its a piss-poor reason to undermine a fundamental of our constitution. But isn't it so very, very National?

I want to see the Kermadecs protected. I also want the government to honour the Treaty and act in good faith towards its Treaty partners. These are not irreconcilable goals, and I'm confident that the current government is both interested in and capable of finding a solution. But National's arrogant racism isn't helping. If they really wanted an ocean sanctuary, they'd drop their bill, and focus on negotiations instead.

Speaker Trevor Mallard has put both sides of Parliament on notice in the war over written questions, warning them he expects a higher standard once the House resumes in 2018.

[...]

“I think it’s fair to say I wouldn’t be happy if the current approach from either side continued in the long term ... I don’t want us to be in this situation after Christmas.”

While he says Labour's refusals are "within standing orders" (because standing orders basicly leave it entirely up to the Minister how to respond, and forbid any inquiry into those responses), he's also clear that the information should be released. And on that front, he's supporting automatic, proactive release:

However, he described written questions as “sort of like a last resort”, and instead believed it would be better to establish an automated method of releasing information.

“There was a strong view [in past discussions] that if you could get a system that was pretty much automatic, transparent, didn’t require application, then that would be better.

[...]

“Eventually getting some websites going which contain most of that material, for example, Cabinet papers two months after they’ve been to Cabinet automatically up unless there’s a good reason not to, just that sort of stuff would mean you’d have a lot of access to, actually quite boring information, but access to what's going on.”

I agree. Ministerial diaries, briefing lists, Cabinet and committee agendas, and the papers should all automatically be made public, with redactions only where necessary and according to the scheme of the OIA (so they can be challenged and reviewed by the Ombudsman). And these would certainly remove a huge number of mundane requests (while enabling specific ones... which is what the government doesn't want). Unfortunately, none of this falls under Mallard's powers as Speaker. But if he wants to push for it, the way to do it is to read Ministers the riot act and force them to answer written questions, so that it will be less fucking work to proactively release everything than it is to try and refuse it.